100 Pitch Count

[mgbrown66]

Over the last two years something has bothered me that has come to head the last three games.

Our starting pitching has been superb. But they seem to always throw 100 pitches by the 5th or 6th inning. They seem to get ahead 0-2 in the count and then throw three pitches not anywhere near the plate. Do they all have personalized license plates that read FLLCOUNT?

Their K's and ERA are more than I could have hoped for 1/6th into the season. But with this bullpen I wish they would/could get through 7 innings.

[westofyou]

Batter awareness of the strike zone is at an all time high, players are taking more pitches and are taught to go deeper in the count than ever before. Being aggressive in the zone is not the only approach a batter has these days, they tend to only be aggressive on certain pitches or counts

That's what generates huge pitch counts, it's not going away either, the day of the complete game will recede as more players take walks and k's over first pitch line outs

[DocRed]

There's no Q that more strikeouts mean more pitches. Look how efficient T-Bone was in his start and he struck out 2 in 5 innings yet only threw 64 pitches. I much prefer that style of pitching, attack the strike zone and make them put it in play.

Strikeouts are great when you have men on base but are a detriment to your pitch count when bases are empty.

[bm1475]

"Pitch to contact" was a disastrous policy for the Reds for several years. Making the best pitch possible all the time is the only way to go when every hitter is loading up to hit the ball 500 feet every time. I agree that the old ways are much more aesthetically pleasing and the min/maxing of baseball has really soured me on the game (although to be totally honest the main factors have been real life time constraints and the Reds being terrible for years), but this is how the game is in this day and age.

[RedsManRick]

Batter awareness of the strike zone is at an all time high, players are taking more pitches and are taught to go deeper in the count than ever before. Being aggressive in the zone is not the only approach a batter has these days, they tend to only be aggressive on certain pitches or counts

That's what generates huge pitch counts, it's not going away either, the day of the complete game will recede as more players take walks and k's over first pitch line outs

Yep. A natural result of both hitters and pitchers getting better.

[foster15]

Batter awareness of the strike zone is at an all time high, players are taking more pitches and are taught to go deeper in the count than ever before. Being aggressive in the zone is not the only approach a batter has these days, they tend to only be aggressive on certain pitches or counts

That's what generates huge pitch counts, it's not going away either, the day of the complete game will recede as more players take walks and k's over first pitch line outs

Okay, that's part of it. But I think pitchers try to get batters to chase more also. It seems that more often than not we see pitches out of the strike zone when ever a pitcher is ahead of the batter. I think pitchers have had their expectations changed in that managers do not ask for efficiency anymore. If you ask a pitcher to give you only 5 innings with the least amount of damage, they are then free to be more motivated to try and nibble off the plate and also throw a lot of waste pitches just to try and keep their era below 5.00

I've noticed that pitches on 0-2 counts are nowhere near the strike zone anymore. They're always about 2 feet out of the strikezone. Batters that aren't nervous rookies never swing at an 0-2 pitch because they know the pitch is going to be two feet outside or a few inches over their head.

Teams carrying 8 relievers has given managers the luxury to not worry about bullpen over use and thus not requiring starters to be more efficient. Now with the expanded roster their season, it's probably worse.

[mgbrown66]

Watching the last three Indians starters was refreshing. They don't seem to waste pitches a foot out of the zone, or bouncing a breaking ball in front of the plate. And they still strike out a ton of guys.

Castillo, for me, has been the most frustrating with the new way we baseball.

Does anyone know if there is a stat that tracks what the count is when the pitcher gets a strikeout? Avg number of pitches per K kind of stat? I'd love to see that.

[Ron Madden]

Okay, that's part of it. But I think pitchers try to get batters to chase more also. It seems that more often than not we see pitches out of the strike zone when ever a pitcher is ahead of the batter. I think pitchers have had their expectations changed in that managers do not ask for efficiency anymore. If you ask a pitcher to give you only 5 innings with the least amount of damage, they are then free to be more motivated to try and nibble off the plate and also throw a lot of waste pitches just to try and keep their era below 5.00

Teams carrying 8 relievers has given managers the luxury to not worry about bullpen over use and thus not requiring starters to be more efficient. Now with the expanded roster their season, it's probably worse.

I think this is the other way around.

[M2]

Batter awareness of the strike zone is at an all time high, players are taking more pitches and are taught to go deeper in the count than ever before. Being aggressive in the zone is not the only approach a batter has these days, they tend to only be aggressive on certain pitches or counts

That's what generates huge pitch counts, it's not going away either, the day of the complete game will recede as more players take walks and k's over first pitch line outs

And this isn't even new. The average IP/GS hasn't been above 6.0 since 1998. It was at 6.0 in 2005, 2010, 2011 and 2014. That's the high water mark for the 21st century. The high mark for the '90s was 6.2 IP/GS in 1992. Wasn't much higher in the '80s, with it topping out at 6.4 IP/GS in 1988 (one of the best pitching seasons ever). Even in the iron man era of modern baseball, the most SPs averaged was 6.7 IP/GS in 1972. So we're kind of wistful for something that never really existed. Also, today we're as close to 1972 as 1972 was to 1924.

[foster15]

And this isn't even new. The average IP/GS hasn't been above 6.0 since 1998. It was at 6.0 in 2005, 2010, 2011 and 2014. That's the high water mark for the 21st century. The high mark for the '90s was 6.2 IP/GS in 1992. Wasn't much higher in the '80s, with it topping out at 6.4 IP/GS in 1988 (one of the best pitching seasons ever). Even in the iron man era of modern baseball, the most SPs averaged was 6.7 IP/GS in 1972. So we're kind of wistful for something that never really existed. Also, today we're as close to 1972 as 1972 was to 1924.

No, while the average is staying close to the same, it doesn't get there the same way. Proof is in the amount of complete games being pitched now compared to the past. In the 70s and 80s and probably most of the 90s and maybe even beyond, starting pitchers weren't left in the game to get blown up or sacrificed to rest the pen. Pitchers giving up 3 or 4 runs in the first couple innings were patted on the butt, told "you'll get em next time" and yanked. So while the averages stayed close to the same, it's because pitchers are allowed to pitch ineffectively longer and effectively shorter.

Complete games in 1974:1089 1984:632 1994:255 2004:150 2014:118 And last year I believe it was 45.

So it stands to reason that if complete games are going down by such a massive amount, so are 6, 7 and 8 inning stints as well.

[CaiGuy]

And this isn't even new. The average IP/GS hasn't been above 6.0 since 1998. It was at 6.0 in 2005, 2010, 2011 and 2014. That's the high water mark for the 21st century. The high mark for the '90s was 6.2 IP/GS in 1992. Wasn't much higher in the '80s, with it topping out at 6.4 IP/GS in 1988 (one of the best pitching seasons ever). Even in the iron man era of modern baseball, the most SPs averaged was 6.7 IP/GS in 1972. So we're kind of wistful for something that never really existed. Also, today we're as close to 1972 as 1972 was to 1924.

Maybe if I am around in 30 years, I will be lamenting the state of 2050 baseball vs 2020.

"Back my day, guys could take you deep and a pitcher could get a K, not this boring scrappy, bunt-happy small-ball you kids play these days."

[M2]

No, while the average is staying close to the same, it doesn't get there the same way. Proof is in the amount of complete games being pitched now compared to the past. In the 70s and 80s and probably most of the 90s and maybe even beyond, starting pitchers weren't left in the game to get blown up or sacrificed to rest the pen. Pitchers giving up 3 or 4 runs in the first couple innings were patted on the butt, told "you'll get em next time" and yanked. So while the averages stayed close to the same, it's because pitchers are allowed to pitch ineffectively longer and effectively shorter.

Complete games in 1974:1089 1984:632 1994:255 2004:150 2014:118 And last year I believe it was 45.

So it stands to reason that if complete games are going down by such a massive amount, so are 6, 7 and 8 inning stints as well.

The CG's been on the verge of extinction for 20+ years. Even for that you've got to go back to the 80s, which (and I hate to break this to people) is getting real distant in the rearview.

Also, there's approximately the same number of above and below average pitchers in the modern game as there has been at any point in baseball history. There's just more scoring now than 4 or 5 decades ago. You'd get a guy after four runs in 1972 because four runs meant you probably just lost the game (MLB average 3.69 runs per game). The hasgood/bad shifted because you no longer get to pitch against an army of Roger Metzger clones. That's also why you have to go full throttle these days. Make a bad pitch and it flies 400+ feet. Guys can't go as deep because they're working harder from the first pitch. Guys who can get you 7 IP with any sort of regularity are a rarity (and it's one of the reasons why it's sweet to have Bauer).

[foster15]

The CG's been on the verge of extinction for 20+ years. Even for that you've got to go back to the 80s, which (and I hate to break this to people) is getting real distant in the rearview.

Also, there's approximately the same number of above and below average pitchers in the modern game as there has been at any point in baseball history. There's just more scoring now than 4 or 5 decades ago. You'd get a guy after four runs in 1972 because four runs meant you probably just lost the game (MLB average 3.69 runs per game). The hasgood/bad shifted because you no longer get to pitch against an army of Roger Metzger clones. That's also why you have to go full throttle these days. Make a bad pitch and it flies 400+ feet. Guys can't go as deep because they're working harder from the first pitch. Guys who can get you 7 IP with any sort of regularity are a rarity (and it's one of the reasons why it's sweet to have Bauer).

I has more to do with change of philosophy based on changes to the game. The more ways to get to the post season the more baseball is looked at as a marathon rather than a sprint. Back in the 60s, every game was looked at as important and you did everything you could do to win it. If that meant leaving your starter in to pitch 11 innings, that's what you did. If it meant bringing in your best reliever 4 days in a row to close out the game, that's what you did. Because you either finished 1st in your league, or you didn't go to the post season. Then it was finish first among 6 teams in your division and then came the wild cards. There is a direct correlation between not using pitch counts and using pitch counts. Obviously this marathon philosophy can extend across seasons too as when you sign pitchers to 100 million dollar contracts, you have to try and keep them healthy across seasons also.

Starters, no matter how bad they're pitching are left in based on pitch counts more often these days because managers accept the fact that you're better off using your assets on games where wins are more probable and accept that there will be a high percentage of games that you can use to keep bench players loose and experiment with unknown bullpen arms. Turning lemons into lemonade sort of speak.

The fact this season is only 60 games obviously leans more to the sprint rather than marathon philosophy but the fact there are more playoff teams kind of offsets this also. Add in that these players are still really in spring training shape, it keeps innings pitched down.

[M2]

I has more to do with change of philosophy based on changes to the game.

Nah, there were just a lot of really terrible players back in the day. They didn't hit much, so top pitchers weren't under constant stress. Larry Bowa used to hit 2nd for an ostensibly really good team, and he was terrible. Now even a guy as dominant as Clayton Kershaw tops out at 7.3 IP/GS at his peak (and his peak was outrageously good) because pitchers have no leeway. Leave guys in too long and they get gang tackled and eaten by the opposing lineup. It's a recipe for losing ballgames and pitcher injuries. Pitch your top reliever day after day after day and he'll melt down right in front of your eyes.

You've got the strategy exactly backwards too. They're doing everything they can to win today. Back in the day they weren't poring over every detail looking for the most minute advantage to turn the game. They used to let managers play hunches and if they worked out (usually because his players were better than the other team's players), he was a confirmed genius. It was crazy entertaining, but let's not pretend it hasn't been a relic for more than two decades.

[klw]

. Look how efficient T-Bone was in his start and he struck out 2 in 5 innings yet only threw 64 pitches..

I'm pretty sure his nickname is Koko.